Personal Injury Compensation - Motor Vehicle Accident - Assessment of compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident - Claimant suffered multiple fractures to the left ankle, underwent surgeries, and incurred medical expenses - Claimant's income assessed based on income tax return prior to the accident - Assessment of permanent physical disability and future loss of earnings - Award for pain and suffering, transportation charges, attendant charges, and loss of amenities of life - Interest awarded from the date after 30 days of injury - Appeals by claimant and insurance company dismissed, as compensation awarded by the Tribunal upheld. [Para 1-23]

Criminal Law – POCSO Act – Applicability – The appellant argued that incidents of sexual harassment and assault occurred either before the enforcement of the POCSO Act or after the prosecutrix attained majority – Held, incidents in 2011 occurred before the POCSO Act, but continued harassment in 2012 and 2013 fell within its purview – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-52].

Sexual Harassment – Repeated Incidents – Detailed Testimony – The prosecutrix's detailed testimony about repeated incidents of harassment was considered credible despite the appellant’s claims of improvements in her statements – Court found her deposition consistent with the evidence [Paras 24-34].

Delay in FIR – Context of Reluctance – Delay of over a month in filing the FIR explained by the prosecutrix's hesitation and the sensitive nature of the allegations against her mother and close relative – Court accepted her explanation as reasonable under the circumstances [Paras 43-44].

Applicability of Section 42 of POCSO Act – Overlapping Offences – Section 42 of POCSO Act mandates greater punishment between IPC and POCSO for overlapping offences – Trial court erred in convicting under both Section 354A IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act – Conviction under Section 354A IPC set aside [Paras 49-51].

Decision: Appeals and revision petition dismissed – Conviction and sentences upheld except for the setting aside of the conviction under Section 354A IPC due to overlap with POCSO Act [Para 52].

Will – Registration – Validity – Whether a will is invalid if signed by the testator and attesting witnesses before an official rather than the Registrar – Court held that although ideally, the signatures should be obtained before the Registrar, the will is not invalidated solely on this ground – Registration of a will is not compulsory, and the execution of the will was otherwise duly proved – Appellate court’s finding that the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances reversed [Paras 1-23].

Joint Hindu Family Property – Proof – Whether mere joint residence and common ration card prove property is Joint Hindu Family property – Court held that these factors alone are insufficient to establish the property as Joint Hindu Family property – Plaintiff failed to prove the property was ancestral – Appellate court’s findings based on insufficient evidence set aside [Paras 24-32].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed – Findings of the appellate court reversed on both substantial questions of law [Paras 33].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Compounding of Offence – Post-Conviction Settlement – Acquittal – Petitioner convicted by JMIC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years with compensation of Rs. 20,60,002/- – Appeal dismissed by Sessions Court for want of prosecution – During pendency of revision, parties reached amicable settlement and full payment acknowledged by JMIC vide order dated 11.12.2024 – Held: Offence under Section 138 NI Act is compoundable at all stages, including before the High Court, even after conviction and dismissal of appeal – Conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner acquitted [Paras 2, 3, 5.3, 6, 7].

Compounding Guidelines – Costs – Waiver – Discretion of Court – Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu laid down graded cost structure for delayed compounding, subsequently revised in Sanjabij Tari reducing the cost percentages – Courts retain discretion to waive costs in exceptional and compelling circumstances upon recording of reasons – Held: Discretion to waive costs must not be exercised as a matter of course but requires exceptional justification – In the present case, petitioner having faced criminal litigation since 2011, no costs imposed [Paras 5, 5.4, 6.1].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 528 BNSS – Quashing of Conviction on Compromise – Where dispute is personal in nature and genuine compromise reached, High Court may exercise inherent powers to quash conviction, provided settlement does not impinge upon public interest or undermine the cause of justice – Held: Inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are wide, plenary, and must be construed with the widest possible amplitude to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice [Para 5.5].

Decision: Criminal revision petition allowed – Conviction and sentence dated 09.11.2017/13.11.2017 passed by JMIC and order dated 21.12.2017 passed by Sessions Judge set aside – Petitioner acquitted – No order as to costs.

Judicial Discipline – Repeated Petitions – Abuse of Process – Petitioner repeatedly filed petitions under Section 340 Cr.P.C. seeking similar relief – Court dismissed previous petitions on the same grounds – Petitions considered as 'bench hunting' and abuse of process – Courts bound by doctrine of judicial discipline, findings of higher courts or coordinate benches must be respected – Current petition dismissed with costs [Paras 1-19].

Perjury – False Affidavit – Previous Judgments – Petitioner alleged respondent filed false affidavit leading to dismissal of her writ petition – Earlier courts found no basis for inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner’s repeated attempts to re-litigate same issue deemed frivolous and misleading – Petition dismissed for lack of merit and non-disclosure of full facts [Paras 2-18].

Judicial Conduct – Clean Hands Doctrine – Petitioner concealed previous court orders and facts – Court emphasized that litigants with intent to deceive and mislead are not entitled to relief – Petition dismissed with costs imposed on petitioner for wasting judicial time during COVID-19 pandemic [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Petition Dismissed with Costs – Held – Petition dismissed as non-maintainable – Costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed to be deposited with Haryana Corona Relief Fund [Paras 18-19].

Civil Law - Employee Compensation - Employees Compensation Act 1923 - Sections 4 and 4(1-B) - Dispute over wage determination for compensation - Deceased husband of Respondent No 1 was Machine Operator-cum-Mechanic who died in workplace accident - Appellant employer deposited Rs 692579 based on wage of Rs 348 per day - Respondents filed case for higher compensation claiming monthly wage of Rs 15000 - Commissioner awarded Rs 1148175 treating wage as Rs 15000 per month based on Government notification - High Court initially reduced compensation but recalled order in review noticing error regarding maximum wage limit - In fresh hearing High Court examined evidence of National Trade Certificate and prior industrial experience of deceased - Employer failed to produce wage register to support lower wage claim - Court held that qualified and experienced worker must be treated as high-skilled labourer - Actual wage must be used for compensation following removal of deeming cap by 2010 amendment - Held - Commissioner award confirmed - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-13].

Civil Law - Statutory Interpretation - Employees Compensation Act 1923 - Section 4(1-B) - Removal of wage cap - Socio-beneficial legislation - Court relied on K Sivaraman v P Sathishkumar (2020) 4 SCC 594 - Held - Objective of 2010 amendment was to remove the deeming cap on monthly income and extend compensation based on actual monthly wages drawn - Where actual wage evidence is unclear the minimum wage rates for unskilled skilled or highly skilled labourers as notified by Government govern the field - Technical qualifications and industrial experience are relevant factors in categorizing the worker for wage determination even if tenure with current employer is short - [Paras 4-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Award of Rs. 11,48,175/- confirmed – Award amount subject to adjustment to be paid to Respondents within two months.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Adjustment of Payment – Convict sought adjustment of ₹33,10,000 recovered by complainant in civil execution proceedings towards compensation of ₹1.5 crore imposed in criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act. Held: Section 357(5) CrPC permits adjustment of compensation paid or recovered in one proceeding against another relating to the same transaction. No legal impediment to applying the principle in reverse — amount realized in civil decree can be adjusted towards compensation in criminal proceedings arising from the same cheque dishonour [Paras 10–11].

Criminal Procedure – Compensation and Default Sentence – Section 357(3) read with Sections 431 CrPC & 64 IPC – Court empowered to impose default sentence to secure payment of compensation; supported by Vijayan v. Sadanandan K., (2009) 6 SCC 652. Amount already recovered through civil process to be treated as partial satisfaction of compensation amount [Paras 8–9].

Proportionate Reduction of Default Sentence – Section 69 IPC – Where part of fine or compensation has been paid, imprisonment in default must be proportionately reduced. ₹33.1 lakh received equals approx. 22% of compensation; default sentence of six months reduced by equivalent proportion (≈39 days). Since appellant had already undergone that period, held entitled to immediate release [Paras 12–13].

Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Same Cause of Action – Where both civil decree and criminal conviction arise from same dishonoured cheques, duplication of recovery not permissible. Courts empowered to ensure equitable adjustment to avoid double recovery [Paras 5–11].

Decision: Amount of ₹33,10,000 recovered in civil execution adjusted towards ₹1.5 crore compensation. Default sentence reduced proportionately; appellant having undergone reduced sentence directed to be released forthwith. Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 13–15].

Civil Law  – Partition Suit – Maintainability – CPC S.100 – Plaintiffs (daughters and wife of deceased owner) sought partition of self-acquired property of late S. Sarvayya who died intestate in 1982 – Defendants 1 to 3 (sons) sold property in 2004 to Defendants 4 & 5, leaving out daughters – Appellants (purchasers) contended suit not maintainable without cancellation of sale deeds – Held: Under Specific Relief Act S.31, cancellation is discretionary (“may sue”) and not mandatory, particularly when plaintiffs were not parties to sale deeds – Plaintiffs can ignore alienations to the extent of their shares – Suit maintainable [Paras 17-20].

Hindu Succession Act – Coparcenary Rights of Daughters – Section 6(5), Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by 2005 Act – Daughters born before amendment also acquire coparcenary rights by birth – Oral partition plea not acceptable unless supported by registered deed or decree – In absence of registered partition prior to 20-12-2004, plaintiffs (daughters) entitled to equal share with sons – Sale deeds by sons in favour of appellants not binding on daughters to the extent of their shares [Paras 19-20].

Relinquishment of Rights – Requirement of Registration – Specific Relief Act S.31 – Registration Act S.17 – Alleged consent letters/affidavits relied upon by appellants do not constitute valid relinquishment of plaintiffs’ rights – No registered relinquishment deed produced – Mutation entries or pattadar passbooks do not confer or extinguish title – Hence plaintiffs’ rights remain unaffected [Paras 25-29].

Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – CPC S.100 – High Court can interfere with findings of fact of first appellate court only if perverse, contrary to law or without evidence – Both trial and first appellate courts concurrently found plaintiffs entitled to partition – No substantial question of law arises – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 15, 30-32].

*Decision – Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of trial court and first appellate court confirming partition decree upheld – Pending applications closed – Each party to bear own costs [Para 32].

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Conviction under Sections 279, 338, 304-A IPC – Modification of Sentence – Applicant, a state transport driver, convicted for rash and negligent driving causing death and injuries – Trial Court and Appellate Court concurrently held him guilty – High Court found no perversity in findings – However, considering the applicant's age (now 60), sentence under Sections 279, 338, and 304-A IPC reduced from 6 months and 1 year to 3 months each – Sentences ordered to run concurrently – Set-off granted under Section 428 CrPC [Paras 1, 11, 15].

Criminal Procedure – Revisional Powers – Limited Scope – Sections 397 and 401 CrPC – Held: Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature – Cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is manifest illegality, jurisdictional error, or gross miscarriage of justice – Concurrent findings of conviction by Trial and Appellate Court upheld – Reliance placed on State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452 and Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204 [Paras 6–8].

Criminal Procedure – Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 CrPC – Applicability – Plea that applicant was a government servant acting in official duty and sanction was required under Section 197 CrPC rejected – Held: Driving a government vehicle in a rash and negligent manner is not an act in discharge of official duty – Therefore, sanction not required – Plea also held to be raised for the first time at revision stage and not tenable [Paras 2.1, 13].

Motor Vehicles Act – Overlap with IPC Offences – Sentencing – No separate sentence awarded for offences under Sections 177 and 184 MV Act as they are covered by conviction under Section 279 IPC – Fine imposed for Section 134 MV Act sustained [Para 1].

Appellate Practice – Concurrent Findings – Interference by Revisional Court – High Court declined to interfere with findings of fact recorded by two courts below based on eyewitnesses and medical evidence – Observed that revisional interference unwarranted unless there is glaring legal error or miscarriage of justice [Paras 6–7, 12].

Sentence Reduction – Age and Passage of Time – Court exercised discretion to reduce sentence considering the passage of nearly 20 years since the offence and the advanced age of the applicant (above 60) – Sentence reduced while maintaining conviction [Paras 14–16].

Decision:

Revision application dismissed – Conviction confirmed – Sentences under Sections 279, 338, and 304-A IPC reduced to 3 months – Other sentences maintained – All sentences to run concurrently – Applicant to surrender within 4 weeks – Set-off for time already undergone under Section 428 CrPC [Para 16].